Hail Satan indeed:

Quote :

"A religious group called The Satanic Temple is making plans to hand out literature in Orange County Public Schools later this school year, following distributions by atheist and evangelical Christian groups. The New York-based Satanist group hopes to use a distribution as a form of protest. "If a public school board is going to allow religious pamphlets and full Bibles to be distributed to students, as is the case in Orange County, Florida, we think the responsible thing to do is to ensure that these students are given access to a variety of differing religious opinions," said temple co-founder and spokesman Lucien Greaves. The district has not received a formal request from the temple, but school officials say they reserve the right to review materials. However, Orange has twice allowed a group called World Changers of Florida to distribute Bibles, and an atheist group gave out materials last year. In both cases, district counsel Woody Rodriguez said the pamphlets and books were being allowed to avoid a lawsuit. The Satanic Temple, a relatively new group that supports social justice causes and believes Satan is the "eternal rebel against the ultimate tyrant," wants to give out materials such as The Satanic Children's Big Book of Activities. Greaves said the book contains information for students on protecting themselves from corporal punishment at school. The Freedom From Religion Foundation and its local affiliate, the Central Florida Freethought Community, sued Orange schools last year after some of their materials were censored. The case was dismissed earlier this year when the school district agreed to allow all of the materials to be given out. "They have no ability to keep out the Satanists and the literature they want to distribute unless they close the forum altogether," said FFRF attorney Andrew Seidel."

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/features/education/os-satanic-temple-orange-schools-20140915-story.html

lol

http://thesatanictemple.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Activity_Book.pdf

9/18/2014 11:28:33 AM

Quote :

"But have you ever seen an athiest that was pro-life? They're a rare breed."

Quote :

"they are rare, but maybe not as rare as you think. i actually know a few."

I would be pretty close to that description, actually. I would say that I'm an agnostic atheist, with emphasis on the agnosticism. I don't think that we can know, so I tend towards believing in no God. I would allow for the possibility of a God who is more of the "clockmaker" type, not intimately involved in every day things, but at that point, does it really make much difference?

I am not full-tilt pro-life, either. I think that we should allow for abortions very, very early in pregnancy. I'd say no later than 1st trimester, and probably the cutoff should be before that. I don't really have any problem with "missed a period, shit, pee on a stick, shit, take a pill" just a few weeks into pregnancy. I also think that we should allow for abortions in cases of serious risk to the life/health of the mother. That's pretty much it, though.

I've said in here many times that I don't think the abortion debate rightfully has anything to do with religion.

9/18/2014 12:11:01 PM

I would think it would be obvious to you why pro-life is almost 100% religion based, given your own opinion on the matter.

There is essentially no rational reason to be against very early term pregnancy abortion. The only reason is if you believe in souls or something of that nature that get magically inserted into a zygote at conception.

9/19/2014 2:25:38 PM

also don't ignore that people can internalize and adopt religious-based beliefs and morals, even if they are not personally religious, just from growing up in a religious society

[Edited on September 19, 2014 at 2:40 PM. Reason : .]

9/19/2014 2:39:52 PM

^^ What I mean is that religion has no place in the abortion debate. It should be a question of medicine, biology, philosophy, and ethics, but not one based on religion.

Within those metrics, it is entirely understandable and defensible to be fairly pro-life without any religious justification. I think I am an example of that. However, I am not die-hard pro-life; I don't believe that we have a human being at hand instantly upon conception. I think that would be a stretch without religion as the primary driver, although maybe not 100% impossible and unheard of (although I have never seen a case of that, myself, and it would probably even more rare if you discount cases like what dtownral is saying ^).



I am pro-choice in the sense that I am fine with some abortions. What I'm OK with is pretty limited. I suspect that most pro-choicers would view me as more-or-less pro-life, although I'm sure I don't meet the ideological purity standards held by most pro-lifers; they'd generally view me as the pro-abortion, I bet...so as to whether you want to say "pro-life is almost 100% religion based, given your own opinion on the matter", I guess it depends on what you want to define as "pro-life" and "pro-choice", in a case like me where I'm not firmly entrenched in either camp.

9/19/2014 3:50:48 PM

Are there "pro-life" organizations or lobby groups that aren't against abortion full stop? How you're using the term is odd to me.

9/19/2014 4:03:00 PM

^^ that's the ideal world, but our entire abortion policy (and large parts of policy in general) is geared around peoples' religious beliefs. This isn't entirely unexpected considering the nature of religion and how many people claim to be religious.

It would be tough to position secular pro-lifers as leaders in the abortion debate, because these people don't really exist in congress.

9/23/2014 10:39:53 AM

Quote :

"I would think it would be obvious to you why pro-life is almost 100% religion based, given your own opinion on the matter. There is essentially no rational reason to be against very early term pregnancy abortion. The only reason is if you believe in souls or something of that nature that get magically inserted into a zygote at conception."

If it weren't for religion than logically conservatives should/would be pro-abortion. As more abortions means less minorities, welfare babies, and paying for food stamps!!!!

9/23/2014 11:10:38 AM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/26/ted-cruz-we-need-president-who-will-speak-out-for-people-faith/

Of course, he means "christians"

9/26/2014 3:17:28 PM

The religious right wants to pick a candidate via papal conclave
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsSvq2t-2i0&feature=youtu.be

Quote :

"I’m hoping that pro-family leaders, evangelical leaders…would come together, have a summit meeting. That they would bring all these various candidates that share our values, get ‘em in a room, and grill ‘em. Have the leaders of the pro-family movement grill these guys one after another and probe them and challenge them and test them and ask them really hard questions about what they would do as president of the United States with this issue or that issue. What would you do? Where would you stand? And get some promises from these guys. And again, these are people of character and integrity and I still think they need to be probed and pressed. And then have these pro-family leaders come out of this summit meeting, put their heads together, release all these guys, let them go back to their states and wherever they go, and then put their heads together and it’s kind of like picking a pope. You know it’s kind of that kind of idea and you stay with it until you have the white smoke coming out of the chimney until you pick one candidate that you as a group of leaders would recommend that the entire evangelical community gather behind."

I can't wait to watch for white smoke on Fox News

11/19/2014 11:32:40 AM

Breaking: Michigan House Passes Religious 'License To Discriminate' Bill
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/breaking_michigan_house_passes_religious_license_to_discriminate_bill

12/9/2014 8:50:23 AM

Santorum: Separation of Church and State is Communism

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rick-santorum-separation-church-and-state-communist-idea-not-american-one

12/10/2014 1:10:12 AM

http://www.wral.com/pender-co-leaders-vote-to-add-in-god-we-trust-to-chamber-wall/14336935/

1/8/2015 11:38:35 AM

Bless their hearts

1/8/2015 12:13:46 PM

Should say "in allah we trust"

1/8/2015 1:30:29 PM

Mike Huckabee’s Christian Sharia Law

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/01/mike-huckabee-s-christian-sharia-law.html

Quote :

"But before we get to that issue, let me start with the reason Huckabee’s interview came to my attention. Huckabee stated that his continued opposition to same-sex marriage is based on the Bible, and that he can’t “evolve” on the issue “unless I get a new version of the scriptures.” He then added that it would be comparable to “asking a Muslim to serve up something that is offensive to him or to have dogs in his backyard.”"

Quote :

"So Huckabee was wrong, but it’s not a big deal because he was clearly not trying to demonize Muslims as dog haters. But what is a big deal is his ludicrous argument that Muslims being asked to serve pork is the same as his desire to impose laws that bar gay Americans from getting married because it violates his religious beliefs."

Quote :

"To be honest, Huckabee’s Wahhabist tendencies are nothing new. When he last ran for president in 2008, he argued that we “should amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards.”"

tl;dr

Mike Huckabee is a Wahhabist who believes that we should pass laws to make it illegal for Muslims to own dogs or serve pork

2/3/2015 8:43:17 AM

Indiana

The cognitive dissonance of the religious right fascinates me.

3/24/2015 3:28:10 PM

http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015/Bills/House/PDF/H348v0.pdf

3/25/2015 8:01:03 PM

Goddamit.

3/25/2015 8:34:26 PM

If I was a rich Muslim I'd buy a Gander Mtn and only allow Muslims to shop there just to see the redneck reaction.

3/25/2015 8:36:34 PM

Just set up a BBQ stand outside the Legislative Building with a giant sign that says "Straight Christians not served here."

3/26/2015 12:31:31 AM

^ that's a good idea.

3/26/2015 5:00:09 AM

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-26/mike-pence-signs-religious-freedom-bill-and-the-indiana-boycott-begins

looks like theres a lot of fallout so far...

3/26/2015 5:21:03 PM

I'm slightly torn on this. On the one hand I believe any privately owned establishment should be able to refuse service to anyone at any time for anything. On the other I have no use for religion as it retards human progress.

I'm really glad to see that there is already significant backlash against this. Hopefully a lot of businesses and events will leave Indiana now.

3/26/2015 8:38:58 PM

Quote :

" On the one hand I believe any privately owned establishment should be able to refuse service to anyone at any time for anything. "

Spoken like someone who belongs to a class of people that is significantly less likely to be the target of this discrimination...

Surely you can see why any black person that lived through the 90s or earlier, or any gay person, or hispanic person in parts of the south, would not feel the same way.

3/26/2015 9:03:08 PM

I can see some examples where someone should be able to refuse service on religious grounds, but mostly it's things like a minister refusing to perform a marriage on someone who didn't practice his/her faith and really, why would a couple want to get married by someone who didn't agree with their marriage.

Obviously a civil magistrate needs to do their job if they're getting paid by the state.

3/26/2015 9:28:18 PM

Yes, I can certainly understand why they would feel differently. I just feel like freedom of association is important.

Now, for anything in the public sector there should be no such right to deny service. All those magistrates who don't want to sign marriage certificate because they're Christian need to go jump In a wood chipper.

3/26/2015 9:34:38 PM

keep doubling down on the stupid, GOP

3/26/2015 10:03:46 PM

Requiring a business to not discriminate against a class doesn't violate freedom of association.

There's no law that says a business has to watch men have gay sex or anything along those lines. If some queers walk in and want you to make them a penis cake or photograph an orgy, tell them to screw themselves (or something...). But you can't just look at someone and not serve them as you would any member of the public just because of some nebulous feelings of hatred.

Your freedom to associate is in tact, you're not being forced to engage in the "gay lifestyle." Your freedom to demean someone else just because of some vague negative emotions however doesn't exist.

3/26/2015 10:21:01 PM

I'd be fine with striking freedom of religion from the Constitution. It made sense in 1776 when everyone thought God made the sun rise but come on, it's 2015, we all know that shit is a fairy tale right?

3/26/2015 10:25:35 PM

Eh, i wouldn't do away with religion until we have something equally good at social engineering.

I think large swaths of the population would legitimately be worse people if religion wasn't telling them to (with the side effect of people disbelieving science).

3/26/2015 10:34:40 PM

I'm not saying do away with it. Just knock it down off its pedestal so we don't have to tiptoe around Cletus McJesusfreak every time we want to do something that should be benign like covering birth control or allowing gay people some humanity.

3/26/2015 10:38:27 PM

Quote :

" If some queers walk in and want you to make them a penis cake or photograph an orgy, tell them to screw themselves (or something...)."

But the problem is that businesses have already started to see this happen. The bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a guy couple was sued, so was a photographer who didn't want to take a gig photographing a gay wedding, so was some t-shirt place that declined to do shirts for a gay pride festival.

I think these people are all ignorant fucks and I would never do business with them if I knew about it, but they shouldn't be compelled to provide a service simply because someone else wants them to. What are acceptable grounds to refuse service? Isn't there something to the idea that you have the right to your own time and effort?

3/26/2015 11:12:52 PM

Quote :

"What are acceptable grounds to refuse service?"

nothing that has to do with race, gender, or sexual orientation. that should be a non-starter every single time.

this really isn't that difficult. any law that makes it easier to discriminate is an awful law, especially in 2015.

[Edited on March 26, 2015 at 11:28 PM. Reason : .]

3/26/2015 11:27:43 PM

^^ they should have been sued if the gays weren't making unreasonable demands. IF they just wanted a default cake and regular photographs, your public facing business shouldn't be able to deny this. If they want to deny gays, keep their business private getting business through their church or something. If you're in America, you don't get to treat your fellow Americans like garbage for no good reason.

It seems pretty clear to me when you would be allowed to deny someone service and when you wouldn't.

If you deny them service merely because of what you perceive them to be, that's wrong.

But if you deny them service because they're causing a disruption in your store, disturbing your other customers, or want you to perform a service or make a product you don't normally do and don't feel comfortable with, then deny them all day long, and for any other specific behavior of that individual in your presence. Within this framework, a priest would be in their rights to not officiate a gay wedding.

The difference is that in one case, you're discriminating against an entire class (all gays, all blacks, etc) without any interactions to justify it. In the other case, you're refusing service because of a specific persons requests or behaviors, not because of the class that person belongs to.

Class discrimination is unequivocally wrong. Discriminate against an individual all you want (note this is a different connotation of "discriminate").

[Edited on March 27, 2015 at 12:16 AM. Reason : ]

3/27/2015 12:14:37 AM

So what if it's in reverse? Say the Westboro Baptist Church orders a bunch of t-shirts from a gay owned shop? Should the owner be able to refuse the order? Religious affiliation is a protected class.

Don't get me wrong, I think that any business owner who refuses to treat with people based on something as meaningless as their skin color or who they bang should be picketed, boycotted, and ostracized by the community, but I don't think they should be forced to do business with anyone they don't want to do business with. Not every business should be considered a public accommodation.

3/27/2015 4:26:08 AM

Stupid phone, double post.

[Edited on March 27, 2015 at 4:26 AM. Reason : Sl ]

3/27/2015 4:26:08 AM

Quote :

"should be picketed, boycotted, and ostracized by the community"

I agree that this should happen, but we tried this method prior to 1964 and it didn't work out so well.

Maybe we've all evolved enough since then to repeal the CRA but I don't think we are quite there yet in my opinion.

[Edited on March 27, 2015 at 8:24 AM. Reason : .]

3/27/2015 8:23:48 AM

the easiest solution seems to be to add sexual orientation as a protected class under the CRA since we already have a lot of court history to clarify when is something a private place where discrimination is allowed and when is something public

this religious "freedom" shit moves the needle in the complete opposite and wrong direction

3/27/2015 9:34:29 AM

Mike Huckabee Stands Willing To 'Call Fire Down From Heaven'
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/mike-huckabee-stands-willing-call-fire-down-heaven

if this dude was a Muslim, this would be the kind of extremist stuff that people would get put on no fly lists for watching

3/27/2015 9:41:08 AM

Ehh, it's fucking silly to believe and spout off on, but it's not terroristic or anything. He's just saying that "when" the Book of Revelation goes down, he'll be one of the good guys even though it'll be unpopular.

3/27/2015 10:02:08 AM

Quote :

"Just set up a BBQ stand outside the Legislative Building with a giant sign that says "Straight Christians not served here."

That would be a great combination of hilarious, relevant, and newsworthy. Please do.

3/28/2015 5:28:12 PM

While I know next to nothing about making barbecue, I will gladly work the stand itself.

3/29/2015 1:45:53 PM

You'll have to go it alone; I don't live in North Carolina anymore

3/29/2015 6:06:53 PM

Quote :

"So what if it's in reverse? Say the Westboro Baptist Church orders a bunch of t-shirts from a gay owned shop? Should the owner be able to refuse the order? Religious affiliation is a protected class. "

Yeah but they wouldn't be refusing because they're religious, they're refusing because they're the westboro baptist.

Westboro baptist could sue on the grounds that it's religious discrimination, but all the gay store owner has to do is prove they've served other religious people. That would be refusing service to a specific person for specific behavior, not a "class" of all religious people.

Westboro baptist isn't a class, and i'm not sure, but I don't think "baptist" is even a class.

3/30/2015 12:49:19 AM

also, religion is already a protected class under Title VII

3/30/2015 9:10:21 AM

http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2015&BillID=H348

Looks like our very own legislators are trying to enact the RFRA.

3/30/2015 12:19:36 PM

Tbf McCrory said he'd veto any bill

3/30/2015 12:23:23 PM

McCrory just said he would veto it (but he said that before about things that he did not veto)

3/30/2015 12:23:31 PM

For freedums, you understand.

Really, can we merge at least half of these rural counties and cut down on the number of senators they have? Most reps from urban counties have the sense to not put this sort of crap up. It's going to piss away stupid amounts of money to defend once the inevitable lawsuits get filed.

3/30/2015 12:25:47 PM